Only where mitigating factors are slight or non-existent will a single-aggravator death sentence be affirmed, the Supreme Court of Florida recently held.

As a baby, Omar Shareef Jones often turned blue and lost oxygen to his brain. At two months of age, he was declared brain damaged. His IQ was 76. He was left back so many times in school that at 18 he finally dropped out and attempted to seek employment. He was unsuccessful. One night, he was riding in a car with three friends when one of them pulled out a gun. The gunman intended to use the gun in collecting on a debt, but Jones told him to hand the gun over to him "before one of us might do something crazy." Jones then approached the unfortunate 14-year-old debtor, who refused to hand over the money. Upon refusal, Jones shot the debtor twice, once in the leg and once on the top of his head. After the shooting, Jones ran away, scared, saying, "What happened?" He was later seen in solitude, crying and lamenting that he had "killed a baby."

During his murder trial, Jones was examined by a psychologist who testified that Jones had an impulsive condition compounded by a lack of judgment, both of which were worsened by alcohol (Jones had been drinking the night of the murder). The jury, by a seven to five vote, found Jones guilty and sentenced him to death.

The Supreme Court of Florida reversed the sentence because, it noted, the record indicated "copious unrebutted mitigation," including the abundance of evidence indicating Jones' low functioning mental abilities and dramatic remorse. In similar cases, only where there exists no or very little mitigation will a death penalty sentence be upheld.

One judge dissented, opining that the felony murder (homicide during the commission of a violent crime such as the armed robbery in this case) was an aggravating circumstance able to sustain the death penalty sentence by itself.